Search US patents by free-text query, assignee, inventor, and date range. Returns recent matches with title, date, abstract, and assignees.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| query | No | Free-text search over title and abstract. | |
| date_to | No | ||
| assignee | No | ||
| inventor | No | ||
| date_from | No | ISO YYYY-MM-DD. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided to indicate read-only or destructive behavior. Description implies it's a search (likely read-only), but does not explicitly confirm no side effects, auth requirements, or rate limits. Given zero annotations, the description should carry this burden but offers minimal transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence concisely covers purpose and output. Could be slightly more structured (e.g., separate lines for input vs output) but is efficient and front-loaded with the verb 'Search'.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
No output schema exists, so description should explain return format. It mentions fields (title, date, abstract, assignees) but lacks details on ordering, pagination, or sorting (e.g., 'recent matches' is vague). With 7 parameters and no output schema, more completeness would improve agent decision-making.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is only 29% (2 of 7 parameters have descriptions). The description briefly mentions key parameters (query, assignee, inventor, date range) but does not provide format details except for date_from (ISO format). Baseline 3 for low coverage, with modest compensation from description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states it searches US patents by free-text query, assignee, inventor, and date range, returning specific fields. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like uspto_assignee_portfolio (assignee-specific) and uspto_read_patent (single patent read), making the purpose and scope unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs siblings. However, the description implies it's the primary free-text search, and sibling names give some context. A clearer 'when to use' or exclusion criteria would improve this score.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool targets a distinct operation: assignee portfolio, general search, and single patent retrieval. No overlap in purpose, descriptions clearly differentiate them.
All tools share the 'uspto_' prefix and snake_case, but inconsistent verb/noun positions: two are noun phrases ('assignee_portfolio', 'patent_search') and one is verb_noun ('read_patent'). Minor deviation.
Three tools is a reasonable minimal set for a patent database: search, assignee-specific listing, and full patent retrieval. Could be slightly more expansive but not insufficient.
Covers core functionality: search by multiple criteria, get a patent by ID, and list all patents of an assignee. Missing patent classification or inventor-specific search, but adequate for primary use cases.